What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com
 

Iridescence

Rookie
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
281
Points
0
Location
US
It's not over.... :eusa_whistle: and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.
 
OP
The Rabbi

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
It's not over.... :eusa_whistle: and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

Phenomenal? Sure.
Phenomenal spending. Phenomenal debt. Phenomenal erosion of rule of law. Phenomenal unemployment. Phenonemal low labor participation rates. Phenomenal levels of public assistance. Phenomenal lack of confidence in government's ability to make a positive difference. Phenomenal hostility from the White House.
Yup, Obama has done a phenomenal job.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.
Thought terminating statement. It's from a Murdoch owned paper, therefore it's lies. Aaaaaaallllll lies...

...therefore I don't have to think about anything it says.
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.


Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.
Thought terminating statement. It's from a Murdoch owned paper, therefore it's lies. Aaaaaaallllll lies...

...therefore I don't have to think about anything it says.

Fox Nation doesn't think why should I have to...?
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.
Thought terminating statement. It's from a Murdoch owned paper, therefore it's lies. Aaaaaaallllll lies...

...therefore I don't have to think about anything it says.

Fox Nation doesn't think why should I have to...?
I never accused you of doing so. I accused you of sharing a thought terminating statement. I'm sure you have some settled science to back such bullshit? All truthie and politically correct too.
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.
 
Last edited:

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.
Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.
 

MiddleClass

Moderate American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
81
Points
28
Location
Delaware
Neo Conservatives have become the most dishonest scammers in American Political History.

Whatever happened to Reagan's God's honest truth of placing Country over politics.

President Reagan must be rolling over in his grave watching what NeoCons have done to the grand ol' party he rebuilt.

Shame!
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.


Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billionNational Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.
Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.

I said the National Debt was around 850 Billion.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Let's start out with the first assertion



Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billionNational Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.
Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.

I said the National Debt was around 850 Billion.
And the way you implied it, that was all Reagan's fault.
 
OP
The Rabbi

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

The national debt is not an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.


Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

The national debt is an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.
 
OP
The Rabbi

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Let's start out with the first assertion



Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

The national debt is an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

Repeating something doesnt make it true.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
The Rabbi said:
The national debt is not an indicator of the economy..

That's right. It's an indicator of bad leadership and economic policy and overspending legislators.

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape,

As compared to almost 12% inflation AND 10% unemployment, an energy crisis worse than even today, a dilapidated military, onerous tax structures and a piss poor economic and monetary policy from the Carter years? Really? Stagflation anyone? Oil Embargos? That statement is so full of shit it squeals in pain going into the turn.

wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more.

Let's see, the threat of star wars and updating the US military sent the Soviets into a debt spiral they could not keep up with, with their military overspending, which lead to their collapse hastened by Glasnost's main failure to account for the fact that people once given a taste of freedom want more.

It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

I've seen statistics that put it as high as 14% unemployment. Most common I had seen was 12%. Guess it's all in how you fudge the numbers, eh?

But Reagan also didn't increase deficit spending to equal all other presidents in history on things with no guaranteed fiscal returns like food stamps, foreign banks, and healthcare rat holes

Obammynomics makes Carter look like a fucking genius. Even Carter didn't inflate the currency more than 13% that caused most of the inflation. The only reason we're not experiencing hyper inflation is the lack of velocity on all those bailout funds are not being loaned out because the banks understand the instant that happens, hyperinflation is inevitable. The best thing to hope for is for the Fed to be able to buy that currency back before it hits the market.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
The national debt is an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

Repeating something doesnt make it true.
Goebbels said it did.


oh noes! yEW gAWDWINNDUH teh threabd!
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,533
Reaction score
6,542
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

Repeating something doesnt make it true.
Goebbels said it did.


oh noes! yEW gAWDWINNDUH teh threabd!

Does that translate as "I'm so immature, I can't help myself"?!?! :cool:
 

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

If we look at the first 3 years for both presidents alone this looks SUPER bad for Obama!

Reganomics > Obamanomics
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$515.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top